Thomas B. Stoddard’s “Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal” is a successfully written argument with some minor flaws in technique. Stoddard uses this article to present his major claim, or central thesis, on the reasons gay marriage should be legalized. He presents his argument using minor claims. In a lecture on February 2, 2005, James McFadden stated a minor claim is the secondary claim in an argument. Stoddard uses minor claims in his discussion of homosexual people being denied their rights by the government and by others who discriminate against them. He also discusses how love and the desire for commitment play a big part in the argument for and against gay marriage.
Stoddard begins his argument successfully with pathos, or …show more content…
He is trying to make the reader aware of the privileges and rights denied to homosexual couples. He is hoping his reader will listen when money talks. Stoddard uses another great method of supporting a minor claim by using an authoritative testimony. Stoddard includes a quotation from the Supreme Court, an authority, to make the grounds for his minor claim stronger (Barnet & Bedau, 2005, p. 84). With this support he argues the government should not control gay marriage by giving an example of a court case ruled in favor of interracial marriages. The Supreme Court ruled in this 1967 case that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were simply being used “to maintain white supremacy” (Stoddard, 1988, p. 552). Through this judgment from an authority, Stoddard is trying to appeal to our need for the law to require equal treatment among all. He wants us to realize that people opposing gay marriage are letting their prejudices get in the way of the law and rights of others.
Stoddard then moves onto his next claim that “marriage creates families and promotes social stability” (Stoddard, 1988, p.552). He successfully builds on this claim by explaining that anyone who has the strong desire to commit in a relationship should be supported because the world is lacking people of this sort (Stoddard, 1988, p. 552). Stoddard uses warrants in support of this minor claim.
In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).
However Bennett he brings up two points which divide opinions about same-sex marriage. One is whether homosexual marriage strengthens or weakens the institution of marriage. The other is what the definition of marriage is. If the definition of marriage were changed too much to include same-sex union, the tradition of marriage would be changed. However, there are many people who want alternatives to traditional marriage or want marriage to more than two people. Bennett asks how we can consider these people if we are changing the rules for same-sex couples. It is difficult to say what the right answer is. Marriage also means to decide your best partner. Everyone desires a beautiful life with a partner, but most marriage is not as the ideal as we think. He mentions that many supporters of same-sex couples do not share this ideal (Bennett p.30). Another different opinion from proponents to opponents of same-sex marriage is “the very heart of marriage itself” (Bennett p.30). Marriage tradionally is that of a man and a woman who love, respect, and help each other. Olson says the marriage case is about “rights and happiness and equal treatment” that is what people have learned in this society. The definition cannot be changed easily by anyone. In addition, this thought has been taught for a long time in history. Therefore, we should
In the reading, “Here Comes the Groom," the author, Andrew Sullivan argues that the legalization of gay marriage is both a liberal and conservative cause
Sheldon claims that ‘homosexual marriage is neither culturally nor physiologically possible’ (p. 1). He sustains that ‘without the cooperation of a third party, the homosexual marriage is a dead-end street - referring to the reproductive aspect of marriage (p. 1).
Stoddard briefly points out that "marriage is not fundamentally a procreative unit" because a number of heterosexual couples that are united in marriage have no intention of raising a family and are incapable of having children. Heterosexual marriages in general, however, provide social stability to the economy because the union between a man and a woman has the potential to bear offspring. Stoddard also states that presently "all 50 states deny that choice [the decision whether or not to marry] to millions of gay and lesbian Americans." Firstly, in the case of Baehr vs. Miike, gays were allowed to become a married couple in the state of Hawaii on December 3, 1996. Consequently, Stoddard's claim that "all 50 states deny that choice" is somewhat extreme. Lastly, not a single state denies heterosexuals the right to refuse marriage. It is the legal attainment of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that states disallow homosexuals.
The "sanctity of marriage" is frequently referenced, appealing to readers' value of marriage as an institution. The connotation that Court uses is that gay marriage is in conflict with this sanctity, therefore generating opposition to gay
The debate on whether the constitution should be changed to allow gays/lesbians legal status, whereby the partners are protected while in the institution of marriage is a heated debated which has been ongoing in many years. There are those states whereby the rights of gays/lesbians to have legal marriages have been recognized, but in most of the states their right to legal marriage have not been recognized. This essay looks at the reasons why the American constitution should be amended to ensure that all states across the United States recognizes the rights of gays/lesbians to have legal marriages. The argument will focus on the impact that lack of legal marriages have on the gay and lesbian partners and the reasons why constitutional amendment can only be the best solution to resolve the issues of the rights for the gay community to a legal marriage.
Under circumstances, such as same-sex marriage, Jeff Jordan claims it is morally wrong. In his essay “Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality”, Jordan analysis how such rights would go against others views and public policy ramifications. To make it apparent that his claims about same-sex marriages are correct Jordan states what the two conflicting sides argue.
Debates about gay marriage continue to simmer within American public discourse, though much of the more heated rhetoric has calmed since the earliest efforts to legalize same-sex marriage succeeded in numerous states. These debates have spanned many topics, ranging from religion to politics and beyond. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay and self-described conservative political commentator, addressed one angle of the issue in his July 19, 2011 Newsweek Magazine article “Why Gay Marriage is Good for America.” Through a mixture of personal reflection, social commentary, and political argumentation, Sullivan’s article is less a defense of gay marriage than it is a defense of the idea that gay marriage is compatible with conservative political values. Although Sullivan makes a good case for his position in the article, his argument is ultimately under-developed; the lengthy personal reflections serve to reinforce a relatively minor point in the context of the larger argument, shifting focus away from the more relevant portions of the argument.
Critique of Bennett’s “Against Gay Marriage” Gay marriage is repeatedly under the magnifying glass in the media, the papers, and constantly opposed by adamant conservative politicians. In his piece “Against Gay Marriage,” Bennett demonstrates this issue. William Bennett himself is a married conservative politician. Due to this, we can better understand the flailing urgency of his argument against homosexual marriage. Bennett takes a very strong and adamant approach to what is a particularly sensitive subject at this moment in time, and leaps into act of persuading his audience to turn away from the idea of legalizing gay marriage, or even to reject it.
The legalization of gay marriage has been a controversial issue in many state courts since the mid 1970s. Gay marriage scares many people because it strays from the norms of heterosexual relationships. Traditional American ideals have become a part of culture and society that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, or race, or gender, expect to have as a basic human rights. Several times in history these have been identified as inalienable rights. One of the expected rights of many American citizens is the right to choose who they love, who they marry, and how they live their day to day life. When heterosexual Americans were introduced to the idea of same sex marriage, they became afraid that it would “taint the minds of the young members of the community,” since homosexualty was and still is frowned upon in the community. Thus, the homosexual community’s opportunity to freely choose how to live their life is taken
In the article “For Gay Marriage” Andrew Sullivan claims that withholding marriage from homosexuals is perhaps the most social attack concerning their social likeness. Sullivan reasons that regardless of one’s sexual preference, one has the entitlement to marry a significant other. Likewise, Sullivan reinforces the idea of marriage by claiming that a contract such as marriage is, “...an emotional, financial, and psychological bond between two people; in this respect heterosexuals and homosexuals are identical” (30). In addition to discussing the definition of marriage in our society today, Sullivan enlightens the conservative idea that domestic partnerships diminish the idea of marriage (31). If a person
Sullivan starts by quoting the Supreme Court’s declaration that “[a] state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws” (83), demonstrating that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal rights with other people. He is absolutely right. Gays and lesbians, as citizens, should have equal rights. They do have equal rights. But Sullivan makes a “radical proposal” (Sullivan 83) on the issue. He concludes that, because gays are equal in the view of the law, they should be allowed to marry. True, gays and non-gays are equal under the law. However, individual freedoms are very different from the proposition of gay marriage. When looked at objectively, gays have no less rights then non-gays. Moreover, the equality we have is judicial, not biological. Homosexual relationships lack the biological conditions required by nature for marriage,
One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and